Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers seek relief from reconstruction at Marion Blanton site; Board says review ongoing as attorneys weigh deposit-of-fines ordinance
Summary
Michele and Brent Steele asked the Hamilton County Drainage Board for relief from a drain reconstruction requirement and from post-construction stormwater rules for a three-lot subdivision; the Surveyor said the exemption and drainage capacity issues remain under review. Separately, the Board discussed legal concerns over depositing enforcement fines into the GDIF fund and will finalize a draft ordinance for the Board of Commissioners.
Michele and Brent Steele appeared before the Hamilton County Drainage Board on May 11 about a proposed three-lot split on a 10-acre parcel at 236th and Devaney. The Steeles asked the Board to clarify drainage and stormwater requirements and to relieve them of a requirement to reconstruct part of the Marion Blanton Drain, arguing the subdivision would not increase runoff and that state stormwater rules may exempt the project. They said the estimated cost of reconstructing the drain would be about $125,000.
Surveyor Gary Duncan said the Surveyor’s Office is still reviewing the factual and regulatory basis for the claimed exemption. While he indicated the three-lot subdivision appears to qualify for a county post-construction stormwater exemption, he said detention standards and downstream drainage capacity must still be evaluated. Duncan noted alternatives to reconstructing the regulated drain are possible — including detention or private outlet solutions — but any alternative must satisfy downstream notification and approval requirements and comply with county standards.
Discussion among board members and counsel focused on the need for additional engineering information and formal filings before the Board can make a determination. The Board did not act on the Steeles’ request; the Surveyor offered to meet with the applicants and their engineer to discuss options, and Ms. Steele agreed.
Separately during the meeting, Board attorney David Boyer reported he and the Surveyor had reviewed a draft ordinance proposing to direct enforcement fines into the GDIF Fund. Boyer said state law may not permit depositing such fines into that fund and that further research is needed, including consideration of how the State Board of Accounts would treat the proposal. Michael Howard said additional review would be conducted and a draft ordinance would be finalized for consideration by the Board of Commissioners.
The Board also approved two hearing requests to be held June 22, 2026: the JS McCarty Phase 2 Drain Reconstruction (noted to require notices by May 21) and the Revis Carson Drain Reconstruction associated with the Estridge development (developer-funded but requiring a 52.0 hearing because it includes offsite acreage). Motions to set both hearings passed unanimously.
